Mahaarani Durgeshwari Sahi and Maharaj Kuar Mrigendra Pratap Sahi vs The State of Bihar and Others

Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.—Submission of the counsel representing the petitioners while seeking quashing of the complaint lodged by Labour Enforcement Officer, Hathwa on 14.2.1992 and the corresponding orders passed in Annexure-1, 2 and 3, is based basically on two contentions. One that in one of the applications filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer the time period for which so-called salary or wages was due was not indicated and secondly that the claim which was filed relating to non-payment of wages for the period 1.2.1991 to 30.7.1991 was filed on 18.12.1992, which is barred by law of limitation. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners therefore is that proceeding requires to be interfered with because relief can not be given in absence of categorical assertion as to the time for which the default in payment of wages was complained of. Secondly, since section 20(2) read with 29 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 prescribes a period of limitation for such claims, any claim filed beyond the same and that too without condoning the delay ought not to have been maintained.

In this regard, counsel for the petitioners pressed into service a decision rendered in the case of Awadh Lal Sah v. State of Bihar, 1983 PLJR 413. Emphasis is on para 5 of the said decision.

There is none on behalf of private respondents despite valid service of notice. Counsel for the State supports the decision in the given facts and circumstances but he can not improve the case beyond record with regard to the claim which was filed without indicating the period as well as the time frame within which the second application for payment beyond the period of limitation was filed. The law being what it is laid down in the case of Awadh Lal Sah (supra) this writ application is allowed. The impugned orders contained in Annexure-1, 2 and 3 stand quashed.